Pheasants Forever- SCAM or do they help upland hunters?

KsHusker

Member
The title may be a little scandalous - guess it depends on the eye of the beholder. I've been a member - was a member and volunteered for about 2-3 years for a local Quail Unlimited then Quail Forever chapter. Lived in KS all my life save for a couple years side tracked in SW Florida, deep dove into bird hunting once I was 20 or so and see no signs of letting up...where I want to live geographically is ruled by how close to upland hunting I can be.


What prompted this is in another topic on the KS forum someone was discussing in a reply that Pheasants 4ever buys land, develops the habitat and then gives it away so the public can enjoy. ( I actually think this should be their mission, but it is NOT in the least, no different than the Sham Nature Conservancy that has a couple large pieces of land locked up in western KS and SEVERELY limits the access and DOES not allow any hunting) I call BS -- I've never seen anything they've done in KS that benefits the public. Only thing I've seen or witnessed in their sister chapter (QF) was people donating money with no justification where it went and it being spent on habitat projects at an individuals hunting operation (I wont give away anymore than that but he's been on TV many times on shows and is in KS -- this may have been QU money - I dont remember but either way the same) to some of their friends private land who were members, or PF signs up on private land but the private land was plastered with no trespassing or leased signs all over it.


I like the idea of QF and PF - but do not think they execute in the least -- one of my other friends works for some very very wealthy folks that have bought a lot of large tracts of land and some very large ranches (I'm sure they have been recipients of PF grant money and in exchange it appeared the PF higher ups would request to hunt the property for free at least by his telling as he'd have to deal with them and act as a proxy guide or deal with their requests.

Anyways I'd love for them to change. I do believe they have in my mind completed some "Token" habitat projects on public lands where I've seen their signs in KS - but they are on overused public piece of crap properties where it made no difference. KS is less than 2% public lands if I recall.

I'm aware of a ranch that I heard through the grapevine someone is purchasing for a pittance - as it's almost worthless for ag at this point due to things that have been done to it and some financial maneuvers the present owner made -- but with small changes could be a pheasant/quail and lesser prairie chicken haven (I hunted the neighbor property and the general area a LOT) -- an org like PF could buy a place like this and enroll the whole thing in WIHA (I think it's tens of thousands of acres) but I dont think this org has it in them. I'd be curios how much the PF non profit execs are making and how much money is being sucked into overhead. Probably LOTS of waste!


Anyways - can anyone sway my mind that they are not really scamming us all? I'd love to know if they really are executing a mission that benefits the hunting public but I've not seen one shred of evidence that is the case. Just "token" projects and a bunch of patchwork jobs to pay back donors or benefit another business etc. Makes no sense. I think they'd get more buy in if they'd change.

Ducks Unlimited for my money to my knowledge has completed more of the aforementioned projects and does more for pheasants and quail than PF or QF seems to do. At least in my opinion and my observations in KS.
 
Last edited:
I am not going to try to change your mind. These days people tend to have strong opinions about most everything and rarely change their minds (and when they ask for other opinions are really just looking to argue online). I also have no experience in Kansas. What I will say is I have heard this opinion from others in Kansas and Pheasants Forever does not have nearly as large of a presence in Kansas as other states to the North.

I live in Iowa. I can tell you from my own experiences and observations they do a lot in Iowa and Minnesota. They have been part of quite a few land acquisitions around me. Land is quite expensive around here so they aren't buying up everything, but the increase in purchases and public land is noticeable. It is so noticeable around here that last legislative season the Farm Bureau tried to outlaw purchasing ground to be turned into public land.

All of the purchases around here are usually a collaboration of several Pheasants Forever chapters in the area. The local chapters raise money through local fundraising. This is the money used for land acquisition. PF doesn't have nearly the presence in Kansas as it does here. If they aren't raising enough money maybe land acquisitions aren't possible in Kansas? Maybe it is a scam in Kansas? I have no idea. But it is not a scam around here.

If you don't agree with me that's fine. I am not arguing with anyone over this as this is not a new topic. These are my thoughts and I am quite sure of my opinion. PF is a big organization and I am sure there is a percentage of it that is subpar, as there is with any organization. By and large I think it is a net positive with generally good intentions.

I am a PF member. Just a basic member and I am not active in any chapters. I am member to support the land acquisitions and for the lobbying presence. I have heard buying hunting licenses has much more impact on these issues. I do that as well, in multiple states, and I buy a duck stamp and pheasant stamp in Minnesota.

I have heard the Ducks Unlimited opinion as well. That is great. I hope they are contributing too. We need all hands on deck. I will say around here, PF has done a lot more than DU, but I would not consider DU a scam. Just be aware when you label something a scam, or anything negative, you are impuning the work of everyone in the organization, those with ill intentions, but those who have good intentions and invest a lot of time and money.

Again, I am not arguing about this with you or anyone. I am presenting a counter-opinion based on my observations and experiences. If yours are different that's fine. Have a great day and good luck in the fields.
 

jmuller19

Member
I'm a member of PF, I think their core mission is great but the execution lacks. Maybe they got to big and forgot some things I don't know. I'm a supporter of PF but I wish they were less commercialized.
 
View attachment 9559

Here is a little evidence of PF and QF partnering with the state of Nebraska, I like their system of color coding there enrolled lands CRP in red tall stubble in light purple .

I have hunted on state owned land in KS that was a collaboration between DU and PF it leverages habitat dollars it is some very nice habitat .

PF and Du are a great voice for conservation in the Farm Bill if you hunt any WIHA areas its a a good chance these were help made possible and certainly advocated by the above organizations.

There is Much work needed to be done in Kansas as far as Upland birds go .

The PF chapters are set up to so the money they raise they get to spend as they wish , mostly locally .

I will post a picture of some Habitat I partnered with a land owner and NRCS and a PF Bioligist . No it’s not public Access But it’s what you can do in your area if the landowner is willing .

Look at what the state of Ks says I believe in its Upland bird section / forecast . They talk about the WHIA CRP contracts getting ready to expire and express their concern .

I recommend making an effort to be part of the solution.

DU member PF member Ksbrittman
 

UplandHntr

Well-known member
yep, too easy to armchair quarterback without trying to make a difference by getting involved.
$.02
and Im out. Not getting into a whizzin match
 
IMO, you have to separate local chapters and the national organization. I don’t think my local chapter does much of anything to help non pay to hunt folks and I don’t support them. They get their money from the local banquet. I don’t support it. However, your annual membership goes to the national organization which, imo, helps folks like myself. Like others have said...not gonna argue about.
 

matto

Member
I think this is an important topic so I'll take some time to express my opinion.

The PF/QF model is all about local money for local projects. We all know that. In a state like Kansas that generally means working with a cooperative landowner. "Cooperative landowner" is the critical, and often missing, piece of the puzzle. My family was one of those a couple of times. We worked with a PF Farm Bill Biologist on some of our ground. He spent a lot of time drawing up plans. We executed some of them, but not all. I still have the plans and hope to execute more once enrollment is opened in the right CCRP practices. Another time we took some food plot seed.

In our experience, help from PF/QF does not require an agreement to open the land to the public. This is probably controversial to some people. I can argue both sides.

R3 has been an emphasis lately, and chapters are allowed to spend money on those kinds of things as well. Under that banner, the Wichita chapter has provided grants to several of the local trap teams. I'm not plugged in with the chapter enough to know about other expenditures focused on youth involvement.

I think land acquisition would be a great strategy, but it would require cooperation between chapters. You might only be buying a quarter or two per year. It bring up lots of thorny questions. Where? Money raised in Wichita used to buy land in far NW Kansas? Enroll it in WIHA? Do they still have iWIHA? Tenant selection and management if it's not CRP or when the CRP contracts expire?

I think money spent on food plot seed is an absolute waste. I didn't think so when we took some, but I do now.

"Scam"--that language is too strong IMO. "Could spend local resources more effectively"--absolutely.

BTW, as a 501(c)3, PF/QF national must file a 990 with the IRS. This is the non-profit equivalent of a tax return and is a public document. That will answer some of your questions about how the money is spent--at least on a national basis.
 

BritChaser

Well-known member
I think on the whole PF's a great organization that benefits upland birds specifically and conservation generally. But I have raised a question about its habitat development practices. While driving on US 24 in north central Kansas I noticed a PF habitat sign on a piece of private property with a nice shelter belt apparently provided with PF assistance. Not too far away from the PF sign on the same property was a "no hunting" sign. I thought WTF?! This property owner gets PF assistance on habitat development and then gets to keep the entire benefit, to hell with all other dues paying PF members? When I inquired, it was explained that 1) any habitat development benefits upland game in general, and 2) that PF does not condition its habitat assistance on the landowner permitting hunting. This arrangement does not pass the smell test for me. If a landowner gets PF assistance, the sign should say, in addition to the habitat info: "Open to hunting by any current PF member. You must have your membership card in your possession or you may be charged with trespassing."

My two cents worth.
 
Last edited:

KsHusker

Member
Some good points above. "Scam" is a strong word - but it does seem to border on it IMO when they preach habitat restoration and hunting opportunities when what I've seen is similar to some of the other experiences of those above.


If they changed their focus instead of what they do now (which is very little IMO) to providing public hunting opportunities and habitat restoration that benefits their members instead of a select few then I think they'd get more buy in.

I'm not sure (I haven't dove deep) how much resources they spend on influencing/lobbying in regards to farm bill/farming practices but the negative changes I've seen in KS the past 10 years not to mention the past 20-30 they've been LOSING and haven't done squat.


All it takes is working with the Ag industry and if they'd buy garbage land that doesnt produce or get easements on land that doesnt produce and provide hunting opportunities where it makes the most difference I think they'd get a lot of folks to buy in.


I'm guessing their leadership are all fat and happy like QU used to be -- think they scammed all sorts of money and had to be shut down if I recall.


I didnt start the topic to argue with folks - I'd like to believe I've evolved past that stage in my life. Having a discussion could be step #1 to having positive changes. They've failed imo based on more recent data.



I guess I'm biased - but for those of that live in areas that are upland birds last strongholds to me it makes more sense to dump your resources there rather than lost causes such as on the coasts or areas where habitat degradation and development have dug holes so deep you'll never get out. I'd like to think for KS, OK, TX, CO, UT, ID, IA, SD, ND and quail related states it would make sense to invest your money where you'll get the most bang for your buck. Judging by the higher # of out of state plates I've seen here the past few years I dont think the hunters traveling here would disagree. (I'm sure I'm leaving out some other states with decent huntable populations of wild birds - only listing the ones I'm aware of off the top of my head)


*******I'd think PF even getting involved at the state level government would make a HUGE difference. Right now at least IMO our KDWPT has been and is still ruled by all decisions involving what is best for deer hunting. It's led to handing out tags like toilet paper and putting an emphasis on the wrong animal and has led to the detriment of our upland birds -- The Kansas Bowhunters Association as far as I can tell have the most sway along with large landowners running outfitting businesses on how the KDWPT/Legislature run things involving wildlife - PF if dumping what I'd presume are large resources (maybe they dont have as large of a coffer to pull from) into influencing things upland bird wise and realizing deer hunting is and has been ruining our upland opportunities here since the 90's they could make a more immediate impact. PF is probably the organization large enough to make a difference which is why I bring them up - but they are going to go down the toilet and continue to lose influence much like the NRA has and will continue to do if they do not reassess who they need to court as active members and who their "customers" truly are.


When I'm bored I'll have to research some of their financial docs.


(PS -- Also Matto - I dont think ... at least I'm not calling for folks that accept habitat improvements from PF chapters being forced to open up their lands to public hunting - but what my opinion is - is that rather than develop habitat that will likely only be enjoyed by a family or one person or even a hunting business - it makes more sense to throw those resources to developing lands/habitat that will be enjoyed by the masses rather than a select few....I think based on the comments above it would get more buy in -- Or rather than habitat improvements - spend the money on lobbying to expand the CP33 or CRP programs and work with the ag industry to educate them on the advantages of farming for upland birds in mind rather than deer or spraying so many chemicals nary a roundup resistant plant will survive.)

As for those that say get involved - I was in the past - thinking about it again - but dont want to if it's a waste of my time and simply catering to snobs who have a peter measuring contest and who can drink the most alcohol and throw their money around with no accountability of where the money is going. PF has lost me similar to how the NRA has lost me and I'm sure many others.
 
Last edited:

matto

Member
I think on the whole PF's a great organization that benefits upland birds specifically and conservation generally. But I have raised a question about its habitat development practices. While driving on US 24 in north central Kansas I noticed a PF habitat sign on a piece of private property with a nice shelter belt apparently provided with PF assistance. Not too far away from the PF sign on the same property was a "no hunting" sign. I thought WTF?! This property owner gets PF assistance on habitat development and then gets to keep the entire benefit, to hell with all other dues paying PF members? When I inquired, it was explained that 1) any habitat development benefits upland game in general, and 2) that PF does not condition its habitat assistance on the landowner permitting hunting. This arrangement does not pass the smell test for me. If a landowner gets PF assistance, the sign should say, in addition to the habitat info: "Open to hunting by any current PF member. You must have your membership card in your possession or you may be charged with trespassing."

My two cents worth.

I understand your fundamental point: if PF provides help or funding, the ground should be open to PF members. I'm not getting into that. It's a third-rail issue that pits hunters against land owners and there are arguments to be made in support of both sides.

I'm just pointing out that your belief that PF somehow helped or funded habitat work on that particular piece of ground is only an assumption. They sell those signs in the online store. 4-5 years ago I convinced our tenant to let our wheat ground go unsprayed after harvest. He was little reluctant, but he did it. About the first of august he called positively apoplectic about the weeds that grew up. It was chest high with sunflower, kochia, and all the stuff I love to see. He was worried about what the neighbors would think. Worried about kochia and tumbleweeds breaking off and blowing onto the neighboring fields spreading weed seed. Worried about replenishing the seed bank in the soil that he thought was pretty depleted (evidently not). etc. These are all legitimate concerns.

I bought three of those signs and sent them to him so that his neighbors wouldn't think that he was a lazy or stupid farmer. He actually used those words. That seemed to placate him a little, but he still mowed it in late September. :( I was looking forward to hunting it in November. Had you driven by that property, you would have incorrectly assumed that PF contributed to the habitat I'm trying to produce. No local chapter contributed in any way to that glorious patch of weeds.
 

matto

Member
(PS -- Also Matto - I dont think ... at least I'm not calling for folks that accept habitat improvements from PF chapters being forced to open up their lands to public hunting - but what my opinion is - is that rather than develop habitat that will likely only be enjoyed by a family or one person or even a hunting business - it makes more sense to throw those resources to developing lands/habitat that will be enjoyed by the masses rather than a select few....I think based on the comments above it would get more buy in -- Or rather than habitat improvements - spend the money on lobbying to expand the CP33 or CRP programs and work with the ag industry to educate them on the advantages of farming for upland birds in mind rather than deer or spraying so many chemicals nary a roundup resistant plant will survive.)

I think what you've written above about access and habitat projects is pretty safe common ground--if I'm interpreting it correctly. Chapters should prioritize projects on publicly owned lands and WIHA lands before funding projects behind "posted" signs. That seems like a pretty reasonable position. My point is that I think they have more money for habitat projects than they have landowners willing to complete one, but that's just an assumption. That's why they end up funding R3 projects and buying food plot seed. I think they're raising more money than the cooperative landowners want.
 

KsHusker

Member
I'm just pointing out that your belief that PF somehow helped or funded habitat work on that particular piece of ground is only an assumption. They sell those signs in the online store. 4-5 years ago I convinced our tenant to let our wheat ground go unsprayed after harvest. He was little reluctant, but he did it. About the first of august he called positively apoplectic about the weeds that grew up. It was chest high with sunflower, kochia, and all the stuff I love to see. He was worried about what the neighbors would think. Worried about kochia and tumbleweeds breaking off and blowing onto the neighboring fields spreading weed seed. Worried about replenishing the seed bank in the soil that he thought was pretty depleted (evidently not). etc. These are all legitimate concerns.

.......so that his neighbors wouldn't think that he was a lazy or stupid farmer. He actually used those words.


Do you think this mindset is fixable? My assumption is that Monsanto (well now Bayer AG) have done such a glorious job of mind f/kng the ag industry into thinking their gmo seeds and product lines are the end all be all and only way to make money into ag that it may take years to undo this way of thinking. My point of view is that we are doing a great disservice to the environment in the mass use of all of these things collectively and have not fully studied or understand what we are doing.

I know some of the farmers on here think there is an "attack" on them when we mention these things but it's not an attack on them as they are here as they share the same interests we do - I just think most of us do including the ones that have bought into the logic the ag industry seems to be selling do not look at the big picture - I have yet to see a study or a real world example of whether when you factor in your time (it has a dollar value attached to it), use of machinery/equipment required, cost of inputs etc etc whether it's more econonomically advantageous to farm the "clean modern way" or whether some of the old school ways had it right or whether there's a line in the sand where the old school ways of farming that benefited the environment and many species of wildlife and the "new" ways can somehow meet in the middle.

I'm a bit ag focused in this comment as in the breadbasket where IMO you'll find the most quail/phez Ag has the biggest influence on the habitat.
 

matto

Member
Do you think this mindset is fixable? My assumption is that Monsanto (well now Bayer AG) have done such a glorious job of mind f/kng the ag industry into thinking their gmo seeds and product lines are the end all be all and only way to make money into ag that it may take years to undo this way of thinking. My point of view is that we are doing a great disservice to the environment in the mass use of all of these things collectively and have not fully studied or understand what we are doing.

I know some of the farmers on here think there is an "attack" on them when we mention these things but it's not an attack on them as they are here as they share the same interests we do - I just think most of us do including the ones that have bought into the logic the ag industry seems to be selling do not look at the big picture - I have yet to see a study or a real world example of whether when you factor in your time (it has a dollar value attached to it), use of machinery/equipment required, cost of inputs etc etc whether it's more econonomically advantageous to farm the "clean modern way" or whether some of the old school ways had it right or whether there's a line in the sand where the old school ways of farming that benefited the environment and many species of wildlife and the "new" ways can somehow meet in the middle.

I'm a bit ag focused in this comment as in the breadbasket where IMO you'll find the most quail/phez Ag has the biggest influence on the habitat.

This is a long way from PF and how they spend their money, but here goes...

Good friend of mine once said that the easiest things to do were raise someone else's kids and run someone else's business.

One piece of advice on this subject--stop using the word "fix" or any other language that implies you're right and they're wrong. That's not going to get you anywhere unless/until you've attempted to provide for your family by raising crops.

I'm not going to try to "fix" our tenant's opinions or mindset. I don't think his mindset is broken. He and I just have different objectives, to some degree. Nor do I have the credibility with him or the knowledge base to believe that I know better than him.

I'm not sure pheasants can thrive on a landscape dominated by the ag practices necessary for a producer to maximize income. You seem to believe there are alternative ag practices that could break that paradigm. Maybe you're right, but the choices are either to prove it yourself or convince someone to gamble their own livelihood on it. The latter option being what you described as "fixing" a farmer's mindset.

The best fix is to create markets and structures where hunting for truly wild game birds has meaningful economic value to landowners and producers. IE, where a landowner/producer can monetize practices that favor wild birds.
 
Do you think this mindset is fixable? My assumption is that Monsanto (well now Bayer AG) have done such a glorious job of mind f/kng the ag industry into thinking their gmo seeds and product lines are the end all be all and only way to make money into ag that it may take years to undo this way of thinking. My point of view is that we are doing a great disservice to the environment in the mass use of all of these things collectively and have not fully studied or understand what we are doing.

I know some of the farmers on here think there is an "attack" on them when we mention these things but it's not an attack on them as they are here as they share the same interests we do - I just think most of us do including the ones that have bought into the logic the ag industry seems to be selling do not look at the big picture - I have yet to see a study or a real world example of whether when you factor in your time (it has a dollar value attached to it), use of machinery/equipment required, cost of inputs etc etc whether it's more econonomically advantageous to farm the "clean modern way" or whether some of the old school ways had it right or whether there's a line in the sand where the old school ways of farming that benefited the environment and many species of wildlife and the "new" ways can somehow meet in the middle.

I'm a bit ag focused in this comment as in the breadbasket where IMO you'll find the most quail/phez Ag has the biggest influence on the habitat.

"this collective thread is an Atomic CAN of Worms.... "


a couple of FACTS to insert, Pheasant Forever is a much newer organization but has affected 158,000 acres of habitat in the US to date. SECONDLY the amount of money that GOES to Mission is 91 % of what is RAISED. That money is used in accordance with Local chapter discretion. For instance in Montana there is over 5000 acres of public hunting purchased by partners including local PF chapters ... , managed by fish and wildlife dept.

there are other good habitat organizations, but you might check to see what percentage does land in the ground locally?

Lastly, if we don't support some grass roots organizations, in conjunction with the AG. community, and affect youth, where do our youth of the future learn about wildlife, and public hunting?

I would support a better idea , what might that look like?
 

remy3424

Member
PF I consider to be first, a habitat organization. They give a lot of their time and money to habitat projects. These projects are hopefully creating habitat that will be benefitial to pheasants (and other wildlife) and through these efforts, raise the bird populations....these populations will move and extend beyond the individual projects.

I don't think their main focus is on trying to create public access to ground. In many areas (Iowa), it is not financially feasible to purchase land for public hunting, but local chapters partner with other PF chapters and organizations to make land purchases happen where and when it is financial feasible, which isn't in my location....and I am fine with this. PF is one of the few organizations that I support. Food plot seed is a great use for funds, these plots provide easy access to food for birds in the winter months. If it weren't for the prviate land owners creating habitat who would be doing it? You should be thankful to private land owner who do this, even if they don't allow hunting or hunters....we want birds and without habitat there won't be many.

Maybe In Kansas, the land is too expensive or the chapters don't get the financial support needed to be able to make a difference. With the attitude of many here, it doesn't seem that it is likely to change any time soon. If you enjoy pheasant hunting, support an organization that is also helping support this....who will that be???? If you are here and ripping on PF, get out there and try making a difference on your own. Rant over.
 

BritChaser

Well-known member
I'm just pointing out that your belief that PF somehow helped or funded habitat work on that particular piece of ground is only an assumption.

The sign said the habitat was provided with the assistance of PF. PF is extensively involved in materially helping landowners develop habitat. Moreover, when I inquired of PF about it, it defended its actions as I pointed out in my post. I made no assumptions.
 
Last edited:

dg57

New member
Do you think this mindset is fixable? My assumption is that Monsanto (well now Bayer AG) have done such a glorious job of mind f/kng the ag industry into thinking their gmo seeds and product lines are the end all be all and only way to make money into ag that it may take years to undo this way of thinking. My point of view is that we are doing a great disservice to the environment in the mass use of all of these things collectively and have not fully studied or understand what we are doing.

I know some of the farmers on here think there is an "attack" on them when we mention these things but it's not an attack on them as they are here as they share the same interests we do - I just think most of us do including the ones that have bought into the logic the ag industry seems to be selling do not look at the big picture - I have yet to see a study or a real world example of whether when you factor in your time (it has a dollar value attached to it), use of machinery/equipment required, cost of inputs etc etc whether it's more econonomically advantageous to farm the "clean modern way" or whether some of the old school ways had it right or whether there's a line in the sand where the old school ways of farming that benefited the environment and many species of wildlife and the "new" ways can somehow meet in the middle.

I'm a bit ag focused in this comment as in the breadbasket where IMO you'll find the most quail/phez Ag has the biggest influence on the habitat.

Farmers have hated weeds well before the current technologies were invented. When farmers found there were ways to do it easier and faster you couldn't stop them from adopting it. What you fail to consider is that farmers can cover a lot more acres that way. I know of a number of guys that obtain high yields and good profits while covering around 2000 acres with just a little part time help. That allows them a good income while the dude with a half section and "the old ways" can qualify for food stamps.

If your not happy with what your QF chapter is doing, get off your butt and work with them to make some of the things you think are valuable happen. That will make a lot more happen than bitching on the internet.
 

Miforester

Member
Ultimately if habitat is being created it is a good thing regardless of whether or not it is accessible by all. These groups provide more then just habitat work, they lobby for better farm Bill's, anti hunting etc. Being in the natural resources profession I can see both sides of this arguement and understand the concerns "scamming" members. Is "scamming" to strong of a word, I think it depends on the organization. When more dollars are being spent on overhead then work on the ground, then it does become a problem.
 

remy3424

Member
Just looked at the leadership of PF -- here's problem # 1001 with them - the Chairman owns a commercial hunting operation in SD - No way in hell a guy running that type of business is going to approach PF with the perspective most of his membership and prospective members will share.

http://www.southdakota.com/local/3166/big-shot-pheasant-fields/
https://www.ammoland.com/2010/07/ke...nts-forever-board-of-directors/#axzz66V5GJbxZ

Yah, I just read the short article about him in the link. What in the heck could a guy like that offer PF???? So you have a problem with a guy with a great business ownership back ground and worked the SD Parks Dept for almost 2 decades? Just because he has a side business hosting guests to hunt pheasants in SD? So he's retired and enjoying sharing and spending time (and heaven forbid, maybe make a little profit) with like minded hunters.

I am VERY new here and this thread and the negativity to PF from supposed pheasanting enthusiasts is embarrassing.

Go to a banquest, meet the local directors of your chapter and see what they do locally. These guys get the youth involved with hunter saftey and actual pheasant hunts in the chapter I attend, that must be a bad thing too? They contriubute money to lobby for more CRP acres, give money on top of the governemnt payments as an exra incentive for farmers to add filter strips to waterways....fricking scammers. These guys are a lot of the reason you see farmers put in food plots, leave a corner unfarner or add windbreaks. If your chapter isn't doing similar things, get off your cans and get involved and get things working to improve habitat. If you don't have a local chapter or haven't been to a meeting lately, stop bitchin cause you have no clue about it.
 
Top